Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

If you read the summary and not just the article, you'd see that Google did not ship them with Android. They were located in the source files if someone bothered to go to the source files that Google had on their site and look for them. They were also copies of files that Sun released but instead of merely using them someone had decompiled and deconstructed them. Somewhere along the way a different copyright got pasted on them. Google also removed them from the tree with the comment "remove pointless test files".

If you read what you're replying to, you'll see that he wrote "whether or not it shipped in a handset", not "since it shipped in a handset". You said that the files were available on a public web server, so to disprove the parent you have to show that they were never downloaded.

No one's found them YET on android phones. I suppose it's possible. Remember: there's a lot of contention about how Sun licensed these files, and whether or not they were used in Android to begin with, and if they were, if they were distributed as payloads.

These files were found by Mueller, if you RTFAs, on the Dev tree. Has anyone from Oracle/Sun decompiled phone payloads yet? Seems as though there are lots of details to decide befor

Oracle's trying to lever a fat royalty check out of Google's BigBank. There'll be a lot of posturing, then a deal will be struck, and we'll move on.

I very much want to see Larry take his Java patents to court and get smacked down on abundant prior art. I'm really looking forward to the spectacle of increasingly erratic/comic behavior from Larry Ellison as the case moves through discovery, meaning closer to patent invalidation. Of course, there is the remote possibility he might win in court, which would be the end of Java in open source, including Android. Which would also be a big win. So either way, we the people win. I don't see much incentive

If you've been following the whole thing, this started out with Oracle accusing Google of shenanigans with Android. When someone actually looked at Android, they did find non-compliant files, however, they would not have been files that Google shipped with Android. They were available if someone wanted to download them, just like the source files of Linux are available with every flavor of Linux. However if you get dev and source files, there are some files that you get that will never make it to a binar

You mean GPL violation? The usual remedy is for the offending party to correct the fault, which in this case would appear to involve (re)attaching the correct copyleft license to some files distributed to developers. An alternative remedy would be to stop distributing the files in question. A combination of correcting the license for files that actually matter and dropping those files that aren't needed anyway is the likely outcome.

The usual remedy is for the offending party to correct the fault, which in this case would appear to involve (re)attaching the correct copyleft license to some files distributed to developers and a hefty "donation" to the FSF.

The usual remedy is for the offending party to correct the fault, which in this case would appear to involve (re)attaching the correct copyleft license to some files distributed to developers and a hefty "donation" to the FSF.

Fines/Damages/Fees/"Whatever your legal system calls it" usually depend on how often you copied it and what money you made from it.

So if there are only those files, all they did was making them available in the source code repository, so that might be some large one-time sum.

If that code was in every single android device or only many android devices had code somehow based on this one or derived from it or otherwise extending the copyright of those file to what is shipped with those devices, then Oracle cou

Fines/Damages/Fees/"Whatever your legal system calls it" usually depend on how often you copied it and what money you made from it.

Weather you intended to violate copyright or not factors in as well (though it has no bearing on guilt or innocence).

The range of damages for copyright violation is anywhere from 1$ to $150,000 per work infringed.

It also matters if they were registered with the US Copyright Office. Copyright is automatic, but you cannot claim statutory damages without registration. All that is left available to you are punative damages, and since Google clearly did not intend any harm, and since any distribution of the files was likely accidental, Oracle isn't likely to see very much money for their trouble.

It's also worth noting that damages are awarded per work, not per instance of infringement (i.e. if someone shares a song a million times it's only one case of infringement). Since any distribution by hardware manufacturers is only due to Google's initial distribution, the very worst Oracle could do is make them share the maximum $150k per work with Google. They can't get extra damages for each manufacturer.

This [ipinbrief.com] is an informative article about the current state of copyright statutory damages. The same author has a more in-depth "primer for non-lawyers" here. [ipinbrief.com]

This is really pretty pathetic. Even if 1,000 files were infringed on, the absolute maximum Oracle can get for all cases involving Android is $150 million. That's combined, not individually. Even the most egregious cases rarely elicit the maximum, so they're really probably looking about $50-60 million, tops.

Weather you intended to violate copyright or not factors in as well (though it has no bearing on guilt or innocence).

Since you're talking about civil copyright infringement, "guilt or innocence" doesn't enter into it. The question is whether the defendant is liable. The "intent" you speak of is relevant when considering a claim of willful copyright infringement, but the infringement need not actually be intentional. Recklessness is sufficient in most jurisdictions, though a mino

I'll do a couple of follow-up posts on my blog these days to respond to some of the misconceptions and misinformation out there.

My blog never made a specific claim about Android devices containing certain code. From a copyright law point of view, however, putting software online for everyone to download means "to distribute", or "to ship", such code, and distributing, or shipping, infringing code makes someone liable.

Ed Burnette, whose post is referenced here, does not seem to understand even basic copyright-related terminology and concepts. He's wrong on almost everything he wrote and I'll debunk itI already left some comments below his article.

It's also wrong, as stated above, that Google "deleted" those files. They are still in the Froyo (Android 2.2) and Gingerbread (2.3) trees. At least they were when I last checked, which was yesterday. They are just not in the tree for future versions.

There is so much out there that's wrong, and I'll deal with it step by step.

Statutory damages [wikipedia.org], probably. "The basic level of damages is between $750 and $30,000 per work," but "statutory damages are only available in the United States for works that were registered with the Copyright Office prior to infringement." If they can't claim statutory damages, they would probably only be able to claim either lost earnings, or whatever profit Google made from the infringing distribution, neither of which are likely to add up to very much.

I'd be surprised if these files were individually registered with the US Copyright Office, but I could be wrong. If they were registered as a group, distributing a portion of the files for testing purposes likely doesn't even qualify as copyright infringement.

Statutory damages can also go as high as $150,000 per infringement under the right circumstances, but the number of infringements don't matter. Only the number works infringed.

I'm not really sure what Oracle is going for here, are they really that ha

Courts will also have determined harm before deciding on any awards. Putting files that did nothing but test certain parts and didn't affect functionality and putting out files that infringed on whole functionality will most likely have differing amounts attached.

The burden of proof goes the other way. Oracle would need to prove that this distribution did cause damage. It is not Google's (or anyone else's) job to prove lack of damages. They could maybe get server logs to determine # of downloads, but that's only useful for statutory damages.

You can be sure the damage award would not be zero even if nobody ever used it.

For an inadvertent inclusion of an incorrect license on GPLed code? I can't be sure of what you suggest at all, in fact the opposite seems considerably more likely. Looks to me like you're pretty far out on a limb on this, I would suggest backing slowly away.

My blog never made a specific claim about Android devices containing certain code.

That's not what your blog post reads like. If they're not part of the codebase used on an Android device, you should have explicitly stated so, seeing as quite obviously "The Android versions of those files" by default suggests that those files are a part of the Android OS.

Maybe you can admit you were wrong or at the very least unclear in certain places, rather than quite childishly trying to bullshit your way out of this?

It's also wrong, as stated above, that Google "deleted" those files. They are still in the Froyo (Android 2.2) and Gingerbread (2.3) trees. At least they were when I last checked, which was yesterday. They are just not in the tree for future versions.

That depends entirely on how the repository is structured. I'm assuming though that 2.2 and 2.3 are separate trees/branches/repositories/whatever, in which case it's perfectly possible to delete the files from the current revision on those branches too. Given that the legal status of these files is in question, it would be wisest to completely remove the files - even if that means having to remove access to previous revisions of the source t

even if that means having to remove access to previous revisions of the source tree.

That's not really an option, given the fact that most Android devices still use pre-2.3 versions of the OS.

I think the wisest option is exactly what they are doing: leave the old stuff alone, remove them from the new stuff, and wait for the injunction that may or may not ever come. Here's a hint - since the source is so "out there" already, it will probably never come.

My blog never made a specific claim about Android devices containing certain code.

That's not what your blog post reads like. If they're not part of the codebase used on an Android device, you should have explicitly stated so,

Being in the repository is being part of the codebase.

seeing as quite obviously "The Android versions of those files" by default suggests that those files are a part of the Android OS.

The repository is the OS. It's just not the binary that the end-user receives. It is the OS the developer receives when they modify Android, or develop apps for it, or downloads it for whatever reason they choose to. That's how Open Source works.

It's also wrong, as stated above, that Google "deleted" those files. They are still in the Froyo (Android 2.2) and Gingerbread (2.3) trees. At least they were when I last checked, which was yesterday. They are just not in the tree for future versions.

That's kind of how source repositories work when you delete things.

Which is another way of saying, he's absolutely correct. The files are still there and still violating copyright. I'm not sure exactly how that's supposed to be a rebuttal.

I'm looking for clarity regarding the impact of any possible infringement. Willful infringement of code central to Android devices could stop shipments. Incidental infringement of peripheral code is another matter. It should be resolved, of course, but would have little impact on the market.

Do Android devices contain infringing code? Do they contain infringing code that could be easily replaced? Or do they contain infringing code that is central to their operation?

I agree with your point about distribution. However, that misses my point regarding the practical effects.

If test code was infringed, then Google would be required to stop distributing it, and pay Oracle for any damage done. Which might not be much; even if it is, Google can afford to pay.

If infringing code was shipped in phones, then the sale of those phones can be blocked. If the phones don't contain infringing code, then they can ship. That's the critical issue for Oracle, Google, phone manufacturers, an

Android contains, under the Apache license, code that is essentially just decompiled code of Oracle/Sun software that was never licensed to Apache.

Now, with some creative interpretation, you can likely indeed weasel out of it and say that this doesn't really mean that files were shipped to end users as part of Android. But it certainly wasn't the impression from your original post, and nowhere did you highlight that very important detail. What more, you contrasted your newly discovered files with PolicyNodeImpl.java, from which the "decompiled unlicensed copy" story started - and why it wasn't big deal back in the day was that it didn't ship on devices.

A lot of readers interpreted your words in the same way as TFA, which leaves one to wonder if that was an honest mistake (but then why not just admit that and correct the story?), an attempt to sound more sensationalist than it really is by omitting details that make it mundane, or deliberate FUD. I was one of those readers [slashdot.org], and I now have to apologize to fellow Slashdot readers for spreading this misinformation. Are you going to apologize for starting it?

Yes, it is. The correct name is AOSP, or more correctly, the AOSP repository. You could get away with 'Android repository' but that would be confusing. Android is a term given to a set of derived operating systems. It is neither open source nor a codebase (most Android distributions are closed source).

It's also wrong, as stated above, that Google "deleted" those files. They are still in the Froyo (Android 2.2) and Gingerbread (2.3) trees. At least they were when I last checked, which was yesterday. They are just not in the tree for future versions.

Wow Florian, that's a creative interpretation of "not deleted". I presume that you mean, a user can still check out an older repository version and that version would contain the files in question. Let me make an equally creative counter-proposition. If the files were deleted from the tip of the repository but not from the history, that simply provides a historical record of exactly what was deleted. You can't make the information vanish from the past you know, unless you are also proposing some kind of time travel. You can only make information vanish from the present, that is, tip of tree.

Happy to clarify. I was talking about misuse of mod points. The purpose of mod points is to rate posts by their content (as opposed to holding an overall popularity vote on the author). Rating a reasonable contribution to a discussion as a "troll" post constitutes misuse because it means an unjustified rating, with the effect that readers are less likely to get access to useful information. It's anti-social behavior because it adversely affects the quality of the information people are likely to see here.

this is pure speculation but...
one wonders whether Eric Schmidt's (former Sun executive) and his very probable push for Java on Android was not behind his resignation. From any angle Android's Java reliance seams like a bad move.

Given that it's unlikely Eric Schmidt had any say in the initial technology choices behind Android.

Clearly not the original design, but very probably in the continued reliance on it. By now, a C++ application platform with no ties whatsoever to Java should have been added to the Android SDK and the fact that it is not suggests some kind of "go slow" order from the top. In the most charitable view, it would constitute extreme lack of attention.

They could have bought another company whose mobile OS wasn't built on Java.

It's possible the decision to purchase Android instead of a different phone software company was somehow influenced by its use of Java.

I still don't think Eric Schmidt's resignation from his CEO position is a result of this, but it's possible the it does have something to do with the lawsuit, perhaps how he wants to handle it. After all, the timing is pretty supicious.

it seems that the blogger who initially reported the issue was plain wrong

Florian Mueller produced two blatantly erroneous stories in about as many days. I hope this high error rate keeps Slashdot from promiscuously posting his stuff for a while. I'm not counting on miracles, but this guy was given two chances on Slashdot and he blew it badly each time. Even if Slashdot's goal is to troll for eyeballs, they can find someone more competent to do the trolling.

Except that Google *DID* distribute the copyrighted code in question, even if they didn't put it into the handsets. So it's actually this story that's wrong-- Google did, in fact, violate the copyright. Does that mean Slashdot should stop posting pro-Google stories for a couple days? Your point doesn't make much sense to me.

One does not violate a copyright, one violates a copyright distribution license. In this case, the GPL. Usually, when the GPL is violated the copyright holder goes out of their way to make it easy for the violator to come into compliance. If the copyright holder in this case demands some extreme remedy, than that would be a story[1]. If not, it's a tempest in a teapot, good mainly for lots of Slashdot hits which is not necessarily a bad thing.

If I copy (that is Xerox, photograph, hand draw, etc) a copyrighted work like a house blueprint for example I have violated copyright law.

Unless it is legal. There are both fair use exceptions and the copyright owner can grant you permission. Copyright doesn't mean that copying is illegal, but rather that the copyright owner has a great deal of control over the copying and use of their material.

If there is no mens rea, the damages aren't as great. If the code in question isn't on any Android headset, guess what. That means no per headset royalty goes to Oracle. If the code in question was derived from object code freely available from the Sun website. Guess what. The damage incurred to Oracle is much smaller. The magnitude and nature of the crime are obviously very important to determining the damages to be awarded to Oracle.

I hope Google gets its way on court, scales up the Dalvik VM and we stop using anything coming from Oracle. Tomcat would run happily on it and we would use a completely Free/Free/No patents virtual machine. Kind of like they are doing with WebM. That would result in companies becoming really careful when trying to take open source code and screw up with it.

Pre-2.2, Dalvik is purely a bytecode interpreter. After 2.2, performance is still pretty crappy, since its designed for a tiny memory footprint and to work effectively on processors with very little cache. I find the idea of running Dalvik as the main JVM to be frightening.

Just to make something clear: they didn't use JavaME because they were too cheap, it's because anyone who has done more than a Hello Wold app realizes how antiquated JavaME is (both CDC and CLDC). Hands down developing something in Objective C using Xcode is a much better experience. What Google offered is basically JavaSE on a phone, which Sun should have started pushing years ago. This isn't the first technology Sun created in the Java realm that sucked (Applets, JSF, JavaFX, EJB 1.0 to name a few) an

found in the unit test area? Does that mean EMI (who owns the copyrights for the Beatles songs) could sue Google for copyright violation and get a percentage for each android handset even though the song "All You Need is Love" is not used in Android in any way whatsoever?

Actually what would happen is EMI would get a one-time award of $10k (maybe $25k if it was clearly deliberate) for all instances of infringement for the work.

That wouldn't even pay the lawyers' salaries. Oracle is in the same situation, so they'd better hope Google willfully infringed on a whole lot of files (all of which need to be registered with the USCO to get any statutory damages at all) in order to break even.

From a legal perspective, it seems very likely that these files create increased copyright liability for Google, because the state of our current copyright law doesn't make exceptions for how source code trees work, or whether or not a script pasted in a different license, or whether these files made it into handsets. The single most relevant legal question is whether or not copying and distributing these files was authorized by Oracle, and the answer clearly appears to be "nope" -- even if Oracle licensed the code under the GPL. Why? Because somewhere along the line, Google took Oracle's code, replaced the GPL language with the incompatible Apache Open Source License, and distributed the code under that license publicly. That's all it takes -- if Google violated the GPL by changing the license, it also infringed Oracle's underlying copyright. It doesn't matter if a Google employee, a script, a robot, or Eric Schmidt's cat made the change -- once you've created or distributed an unauthorized copy, you're liable for infringement.*

On the other hand, Google is only liable for infringement ONCE. The number of times you infringe doesn't matter, it's a per-work thing, not a per-infringement thing. Also, was each file individually registered with the Copyright Office? Copyright is automatic, and you can license without registering, but you cannot collect statutory damages without registering. In fact, registering the works doesn't even make continued infringement after registration liable to statutory damages.

In other words, about $30k per file is what Oracle can expect out of Google. If Oracle manages to get the handset manufacturers in on it (I can't see how they could, but lawyers are pretty creative) all it means is Google gets to split the cost of that $30k with the handset manufacturers - Oracle won't see an extra dime.

This is really pretty pathetic, and typical of Oracle. Instead of calling up Google and saying "WTF bro? You re-licensed my code without my permission! That's not cool!" and allowing Google to say "Oh snap! My bad! I'll fix it!", they decided to try to sucker-punch Google after walking out of a club late Saturday night.

If any other company was the victim of a GPL violation, for whatever reason and whereever the code was distributed, Slashdot would cry foul. I guess as long as it's done to Oracle, it's OK.

It doesn't matter if you distribute the code as part of a product that makes money or if you use it internally. If you slap an Apache license header on GPL code, you're violating the GPL. Copyright law doesn't require you to make money in order to infringe. Why do

Perhaps the bias against Oracle has more to do with how they've handled the situation. If this is indeed something that can be reasonably explained as a mistake and something that happened in code which is trivial/not part of the actual shipping Android product, then Oracle's behavior seems completely out of line. Google did not benefit from use of this code, and Oracle did not lose anything from it being in Google's sources, license changed or not.

Usually the infringed party contacts the infringing party and allows them to correct the error, since mistakes happen. It's the polite, non-douchebag way to behave, particularly since the goal of the GPL is spreading code. In legal terms, it's called "good-faith".

Oracle, of course, is a douchebag, and as such does things the douchebag way.

Thus, Oracle gets slammed for being a douchebag.

It's like seeing a guy hit on your girlfriend, and instead of telling the guy she's spoken for, you sucker-punch him. You're a douchebag if you behave that way, plain and simple. That's how Oracle operates.

Most GPL violations are solved with a quick appology and direct remediation of the violation. Typically the violation is the failure to disclose source and such disclosure then happens. Damaged or headers are not uncommon, and in case of individual stupidity (not every guy checking stuff into version control is a jet-fuel genius) or honest mistake (not every guy checking stuff into version control is fully versed in copyright law), then reasonable people just go "eh, dude, that needs to be fixed" and then someone else replies "ok, cool, I'll fix that".

So the change of license was wrong, and needs to be fixed. Neither license is particularly incompatible with the other. Reasonable people, finding an issue _this_ minor are expected to act reasonably.

Of course Orace is involved so that's expecting rather a lot.

For the most part, if the actual complaint was this mis-licensing, between typical and reasonable GPL entities, then there would have been a check-in with the corrected headers.

So no matter what the other facts may be, the damage threshold is nascent to non-existent, and the "reasonable behavior" test has not been met by Oracle.

This whole thing is Oracle FUD to damage Android for no apparent reason than the fact that Oracle doest that kind of thing.

If any other company was the victim of a GPL violation, for whatever reason and whereever the code was distributed, Slashdot would cry foul.

Not really. Look for any of the stories detailing the FSF's approach to accidental infringement, other than the odd "the GPL is a virus!" moron, it's all pretty civil and usually in favor of the "guilty party". Even from the FSF itself.

Hell, if anything if you compare it's Google who's being conspicuously mistreated here, most likely because they're a large corporation and as we all know, everything large corporations do is due to their innate capacity for evil. Or something like that.

It doesn't matter if you distribute the code as part of a product that makes money or if you use it internally. If you slap an Apache license header on GPL code, you're violating the GPL.

The files discovered in the Android code repository are unequivocally Oracle's IP, with an inappropriately modified license. This means, that for these at least, Google is almost certainly liable for infringement. However, since none of those files ever went into an Android handset, their presence, in a legal sense, is most likely completely irrelevant with regards to Oracle's main aim, which is to extract court-mandated royalties from Google and/or handset manufacturers for each Android device they produce. It would be like the RIAA trying to collect royalties on music that I wrote and produced on my own, because they found pirated music on one of my computers.

As some have noted, having the files in the source they distributed is a possible copyright violation, even if the files aren't actually put on Android devices. And as others have noted, the liability would just fall on Google, not on the vendors of Android devices, and the damages would likely be small, so these copyright claims won't be a noticeable money maker for Oracle even if true.

I believe that Oracle doesn't really care much about the alleged copyright violations. They are just in there as a trial tactic. What Oracle is banking on are the patents. Throwing in the copyright claims does two things that are good for Oracle and bad for Google.

First, there is much that is subjective when it comes to patent infringement. Both sides will present as part of their cases an argument for what damages should be. Oracle will have an expert showing how Google should have to pay an astronomical amount. Google will have an expert arguing that if Google is found to have infringed, the damages should be very small. Determining which damage number to believe is rather subjective (and the jury will be able to go for something in between, too).

The jury will take into account, at least subconsciously, what they think of Google and Oracle. They can't avoid doing this--they are human beings, and that's how humans work. If Oracle can show that Google violated copyrights and patents, that will tend to make the jury see Google in a more negative light than if they just violated patents. Google will want to be seen, if found to infringe the patents, as a company that takes IP seriously and tried hard to not step on Oracle's rights, and the patent infringement was accidental. Oracle wants Google to be seen as a company with wanton disregard for other's IP.

Second, each side has limited time for its case. Some courts even go so far as to use chess clocks to track each side. Oracle can present a prima facie case for copyright infringement pretty quickly. Name some files. Show that they are the copyright owners. Show that they have registered the copyrights. Put up on the projector some diffs showing their files and Google's alleged copies. Point out the massive similarities. Sit down. Now Google gets to stand up, explain the concept of Java boilerplate code to the jury. Take them through the files showing that the commonalities are in boilerplate. For those things not in boilerplate, explain what they are doing and how there are just a few well-known good ways to do them and so it is quite likely different programmers would come up with the same structure. Explain naming conventions and show that they might reasonably even pick the same names.

Note that Google's defense of the copyright issues is likely to take longer to present than Oracle's accusation. If Oracle can spend 10 minutes on it, and Google needs 90 to respond, that's a damn good investment by Oracle. It's 90 minutes less time for Google to spend attacking the validity of Oracle's patents, or trying to show Google doesn't infringe, or to spend on a good closing argument to cement their case.

The ones listed in TFA. You can refer to it if you want the names, but I will quote one block from there:

I did find one odd thing about the first 7 files. Sun published those files on its web site to help developers debug and test their own code. For some reason, the Android or Harmony developer who was using them decompiled and rebuilt them instead of just using the ones from Sun. Later an Apache license got incorrectly pasted to the top of the files, perhaps by some automated script. The solution to this earth shattering conspiracy? Replace them with the original files from Sun which have the correct comments. Or just delete them. After all, they’re not shipped with Android.

See, it may be true its not shipped, but the writer of the article in question does admit the license was altered and tries to dismiss it as an irrelevant action that may have been done by an automated script.

How it happened is not significant (though nor is it unimportant.) The result was an illegal change of licensing, enough to open the doors for rightful legal action. As much as I may dislike Oracl

See, it may be true its not shipped, but the writer of the article in question does admit the license was altered and tries to dismiss it as an irrelevant action that may have been done by an automated script.

The only realistic outcome I can perceive from this teapot tempest is a further strengthening of the GPL, which ought to delight the FSF and me for that matter.

IANAL, but from what I understand, by breaking the GPL, the owner of the copyright can demand some form of retroactive compensation. Worst part is the way the code was acquired. It appears the developer decompiled code, perhaps thinking that would go around agreeing to the GPL. Issue is just that, by not agreeing to it, he never had the legal right to use it. I am not sure what the legal repercussions are for this but I do know it results in copyright violations.

Already replied to another post, but they DID distribute it [stopped but did] to other developers [and anyone that cared to download the entire codebase.] It was not meant for end user distribution, does not mean it did not end up in any handsets either', but it was distributed.

Sounds much like you're trolling. Copyrighted files can be distributed if the copyright holder allows it.

And the copyright holder (Oracle) did not allow it. But this is a situation where the GPL harms Google and helps Oracle, so maybe we should just sweep this all under the rug and call anyone who points out reality a troll?

Your last sentence is just a restatement of this very fact under different (and deliberately fuzzy) language. Oracle did not allow the distribution of those files under the Apache license, but that's exactly what Google did.

The whole spin you mean. The fact is, Oracle licensed the code in question for distribution under some license. That by itself pretty much takes the wind out of the sails of any argument that Oracle never intended the source to be distributed. Then it gets down to niggling about the license, intent, copyleft, tip of tree, all that. Interesting but not earth shattering, in spite of how much various trolls wish it were.

There is great danger for Oracle in all this: they may be perceived as gaming the spiri

How is "the truth" spin? Oracle (previously, Sun) had licensed code under the GPL. The only right people had to redistribute that code was under the terms of the GPL. Google violated those terms. There is no wiggle room here, and the fact is that Google broke the license.

The fact is, Oracle licensed the code in question for distribution under some license. That by itself pretty much takes the wind out of the sails of any argument that Oracle never intended the source to be distributed.

Not a single person on the planet has claimed the source was never intended to be distributed.

Then it gets down to niggling about the license, intent, copyleft, tip of tree, all that. Interesting but not earth shattering, in spite of how much various trolls wish it were.

Take Linux, fork it, and redistribute it under the Apache license (like Google did with Oracle's files), or heck, even under the GPLv3, and see ho

Google didn't take Linux and redistribute it under the Apache license or anything remotely like that. See what I mean about "spin"?

Yes, they did "something remotely like that". They took Oracle's copyrighted files, changed the copyright (which they do not have the right to do) then redistributed them under that license (which they do not have the right to do.

That's exactly like taking something else under the GPL (like Linux) and changing its license, and redistributing it. See what I mean about facts?

...silly accusations against the victim, solely because they are Oracle.

Haha, that's rich. Oracle... victim... like it wasn't Oracle who sued Google over using Java, thus pissing off the entire free software and open source community in one go...

Right. I'm weeping for Larry at this very moment or maybe not.

And again, you are proving my point. Google violated Oracle's license, but because it's Oracle that's being wronged (and Google that's doing the wrong, but Slashdot's hate for Oracle exceeds their love for Google), then fuck them.

You can complain about it all you want, but the courts takes proportionality and intent into account. You're arguing it from a black and white perspective, but the real questions we should be asking is whether there was any harm done, and whether there was intent to case harm.

They didnt take a full OS or product and relicensed it.They took 7 files. Those files arent even used.

Yes its probably a mistake or a very bad judgement. In no way this decision was to give Google a competitive advantage, a better product or etc. Nothing like taking a full product from someone else and reusing it.

Comply with the license (mostly done). Optionally pay a reasonable fee and move on. Not a full scale SCO lawsuit for 7 files again please. Thatsick.

Doesn't sound like "distributing," more like "making available." The files were in the tree for a while, have since been removed, and were apparently never shipped on a handset. None of the files were significant, or added any value, to Android. It was pretty clearly unintentional (likewise with changing the license, likely happened during an automated process). Even if Google were to get hit with a Jammie Thomas [wikipedia.org] scale judgement, a few million $ is mice nuts to them.